Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Patty Nicoson, Chairman of the Reston Task Force, shared this article with members of the task force. It provides a tilt on the "quality of life" concept called "quality of place." From this person's perspective, quality of place is a prerequisite for quality of life.

Here are some excerpts:

Why do people—especially talented Creative Class people, who have lots
of choices—opt to locate in certain places? What draws them to some
places and not to others? Economists and social scientists have paid a
great deal of attention to the location decisions of companies, but they
have virtually ignored how people, especially creative people, make the
same choices. . .

Place itself, I began to realize, was the key factor. So much so, that I coined a term—quality of place—to sum it up. I use the term in contrast with the more traditional concept of quality of life
to cover the unique set of characteristics that define a place and make
it attractive. Over time, my colleagues and I have come to refer to
these characteristics as Territorial Assets, the fourth T of economic
development after Technology, Talent, and Tolerance (what I have
elsewhere called the 3Ts of Economic Growth).

Generally, one can think of quality of place as cutting across three key dimensions:

What’s there: the combination of the built
environment and the natural environment; a stimulating, appealing
setting for the pursuit of creative lives.

Who’s there: diverse people of all
ethnicities, nationalities, religions, and sexual orientations,
interacting and providing clear cues that this is a community where
anyone can fit in and make a life.

What’s going on: the vibrancy of the street
life, café culture, arts, and music; the visible presence of people
engaging in outdoor activities—altogether a lot of active, exciting,
creative goings-ons. . . .

Saturday, October 27, 2012

In an article in the New Geography blog, Aaron Renn looks at workers' use of public transit in the nation's major metropolitan areas using the latest US Census data. For advocates of public transit and smart growth, it does not offer particularly reassuring results: Only in New York does transit usage exceed 15% (31.1%) and only three metro areas have seen public transit growth grow by more than one percent over the last decade. The relative good news is that the Washington metro area ranks second to New York in worker transit use at 14.8% and second in transit use growth (behind NY) over the decade at 3.6%. Of note, biking and walking remain largely irrelevant in understanding commuting patterns. Only seven of the top 51 metro areas show biking with more than a one percent role, led by Portland at 2.3%, and Washington isn't even on the top ten list. Walking's share is larger with leader New York showing a 6.3% share and Washington standing at ninth with a 3.2% share. Quite frankly, it is easier and safer to walk, especially for older workers. In some small way, the study reinforces the impression created by the recent GMU CRA study suggesting there will be few shifts in commuting shares over the next three decades. It also suggests that the French may have found a way to make that change more quickly by making transit free.

Something to think about. . . It probably wouldn't work in the WDC metro area--too much demand and too little capacity, especially in Metrorail. It might work locally with a hugely expanded Fairfax Connector. Then again, this article is about France. Nonetheless, while we frequently get the argument that transit users should pay the full costs of transit (an eminently logical if narrowly focused perspective given the various benefits of getting autos off of roads), this article provides a real counterpoint by describing an effort to move precisely in the opposite direction.

When Jean-Francois Mayet became mayor of Châteauroux in 2001, the
town’s transit system was descending into irrelevance. Each of
Châteauroux’s 49,000 inhabitants took the bus, on average, 21 times per
year, well below the 38 per annum average for small French cities.

Mayet, a member of France’s socialist party, did what few mayors
confronted with a struggling mass transit system would do: he made the
whole thing free.

Ever since, the otherwise ordinary French town has become a canary in the coal mine of transportation policy, closely watched by the dozens of other municipalities in various stages of free transit experiments. . .

. . . But Châteauroux didn’t just test the viability of eliminating fares as a
social experiment; it used free rides to save its mass transit system.
In 2002, ridership had already increased 81 percent.

There were growing pains: the number of slashed or tagged seats grew
from a dozen in 2001 to 118 in 2002. Drivers complained that passengers
treated the bus like a personal car, expecting to be dropped off at
their doorsteps.

But overall, the project has been considered a success. . .

. . . as it turns out, the change nearly paid for itself. . . By slightly increasing
the transit tax on big local businesses while eliminating the costs of
printing, ticket-punching technology and the human infrastructure of
ticket sales, the city turned a profit on the transit system in ’03,
’04, ’05, and ’07. Since ’08, returns have not been as positive, though
the report attributes that to a shift in control from the city to the
region. . . .

One of Châteauroux’s imitators also released
a report this year: Aubagne, a metro area of 100,000 spread around 12
towns to the west of Marseille. This being France, the city’s mayor
teamed up with a philosopher to write a book on the experiment,
entitled, in part, Liberté, égalité, gratuité.

Aubagne has had a free transit system since 2009, when the city raised
the transport tax on large businesses from .6 to 1.8 percent. In terms
of persons served, it is one of the largest free-transit projects in the
world. Since transit fares were abolished in 2009, ridership has
increased 170 percent – a gain in three years that is already
approaching the eleven-year mark from Châteauroux. The authors toldTerraEco that 99 percent of residents are happy with the new policy. Traffic congestion is down 10 percent [PDF, French].

Thursday, October 25, 2012

On October 23, GMU Center for Regional Analysis (CRA) Director Stephen Fuller briefed the Fairfax County Economic Advisory Commission on the potential impact of sequestration on the county. He forecast that Fairfax County would lose $4.6 billion in federal spending as a result of sequestration of about $1 trillion in federal spending. This would cost Fairfax 8.4% of its projected gross county product for 2013, some $8.7 billion, and would translate in to the loss of 87,000 jobs or 13.4% of the county's total workforce.
In reporting on the meeting, the Washington Post noted the broad impact of the potential cuts:

. . . In his presentation to the commission, Fuller called sequestration a
“poison pill” and warned that if Congress doesn’t reach a deal to avoid
the reductions, they will drive the nation into an economic recession.
In Fairfax, he said, the effects would be felt by everyone — shopping
centers, hair salons, landlords, restaurants — in ways that few are even
considering.

“It will show up everywhere,” he said. “A lot of workers don’t even know” that their jobs are dependent on federal spending. . . .

Federal investigators have spent months
looking into contracts worth millions of dollars that were awarded by
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to companies that employ
friends and relatives of authority officials, sources familiar with the
investigation said.

In addition to the FBI probe, an inspector
general at the U.S. Department of Transportation is preparing to issue a
separate report on its investigation of the authority that is expected
detail the agency's history of nepotism,The Examinerhas learned. . . .

Friday, October 19, 2012

Members of the Reston Master Plan Special Study Task Force received the following e-mail message this afternoon from Heidi Merkel, the Department of Planning and Zoning senior staff officer who is coordinating the work of the task force.

Dear Task Force members,

Staff
has received a lot of feedback regarding Scenario G since the Task
Force meeting on October 9th. There is not enough time prior to next
week's Task Force meeting for us to synthesize everything we've heard
and bring back new information
regarding Scenario G. We will be prepared to talk further about
Scenario G at the Task Force's November 13th meeting.

Therefore,
at next week's meeting, we will present information about the Fairfax
County Department of Planning and Zoning Staff report re: Jobs:Housing
ratios and the draft George Mason University Center for Regional
Analysis updated forecast.
Chairman Patty Nicoson will also talk about drafting the Task Force
report.

Thank you.

Heidi Merkel

As Colin Mills, RCA's President, reflected in his Reston Patch blog post this week, the discussion of Scenario G at the last RTF meeting generated a lot of controversy. Ms. Merkel presented a modified draft scenario--Draft Scenario G--reflecting some lower densities and a slight shift of mixes to more residential use that the previous mainline scenario, Scenario E. The reduction of density and shift in mix was driven by FC Department of Transportation analysis that showed that, if achieved, the density/mix in Scenario E would cause absolute traffic gridlock at two critical intersections, even with the best efforts to mitigate those situations. Such a situation would not be received well by state transportation officials who must review major changes in traffic planning.

So the task force will be discussing the jobs/housing balance, itself a thorny issue, and listen to GMU's latest forecast for Reston TOD area growth. Based on a presentation by GMU's Dr. Lisa Sturtevant in January, we anticipate that this forecast will suggest much slower growth that GMU earlier forecast for the task force.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Suddenly, Reston National Golf
Club’s corporate masters have pulled back from the Oct. 24 hearing they
demanded as a matter of urgency before the Fairfax County Board of
Zoning Appeals. Lawyers for Northwestern Mutual Insurance sought the
hearing hoping to overturn a ruling by a Fairfax County zoning official
that barred the Golf Club from turning some or all of its 166 green
acres into condominiums or other residential development without going
through lengthy Fairfax County processes to change the approved use of
the land. Reston National took the position that Reston’s original, wide
open zoning already permits residential development on that land. The
zoning administrator disagreed.

Why
the sudden change by the corporates? My suspicion is that they are
taking a course of action often used by developers or a friendly
supervisor when a proposal has caused considerable upset in the
community. The idea is to delay for a few months, trusting that the
intensity of the upset will dissipate. With luck, folks in the community
will barely notice it when the deed is finally done. . . .

As promised, today I’m offering the second half of my update on the progress of the Reston Master Plan Task Force, and the issues that arose over the course of last week’s meeting. Last week, I wrote in this space about the slow progress of the Task Force,
and the impact those delays will have on development in Reston. This
week, I want to talk about the growing divergence in vision between Task
Force members, and what that might mean for the process.

The Task Force is composed of representatives of both development
interests and community organizations, which is as it should be. You
need the opinions and expertise of both developers and residents to come
up with a workable plan. But there's an inherent tension in the
interests of both groups, and that tension was on display at the
meeting.

Last week, I mentioned that the planning staff was working on its
latest land-use scenario, which they call Scenario G. It was necessary
to revise the land-use plan because FCDOT ran its transportation
analysis on the last scenario, and the analysis yielded a traffic disaster.
Several of Reston's major intersections would see dramatically worse
congestion, and two in particular - the intersection of Reston Parkway
and Sunrise Valley, and the intersection of Wiehle and Sunset Hills -
were so bad that FCDOT and the planning staff couldn't mitigate the
impact adequately. The transportation analysis must ultimately be
submitted to VDOT for review and comment, and it’s hard to imagine them
looking favorably on the level of gridlock that was forecast.

The new development plan will (we hope) reduce the traffic problems.
Scenario G involves a modest reduction in overall development compared
to the last one, with a higher percentage of residential development.
(A better balance of residential space to office space is better for
traffic, since the traffic flow for residential and office tends to go
in opposite directions.) The draft scenario also allows for variable
amounts of development closest to the stations, which would allow some
parcels to develop to higher densities while still limiting the overall
development intensity.

When the planning staff presented the new scenario, it drew protests
from the developer-associated members of the Task Force. They argued
that the lower levels of development would inhibit the planning of
"great" development projects, and would prevent the "place-making" that
is a key goal of transit-oriented development. They protested that the
planning staff was letting the traffic analysis drive the development,
which they considered backward. They also argued that focusing on
density numbers and floor-area ratios missed the point: what we should
be striving for is high-quality development, not slavish adherence to a
set of numbers.

Several of the non-developer-allied members (including RCA's
representative, Terry Maynard) countered that the best interests of the
community should not be sacrificed on the altar of "great" development
projects. If a great-looking development project would snarl the
traffic on our streets, they argued, it's not a great project. They
also said that the density numbers do matter; this process is the
community's best chance to have a say on the development that occurs in
Reston, and we need to have limits in place to protect Reston from over-development.

In my view, both sides have valid points. The developers are right
that the numbers don't tell the whole story. A 2.0 FAR building that
covers an entire parcel looks far different than a 2.0 FAR building that
covers one-fourth of the same parcel. And low-density projects can be
harmful to the community if they’re poorly designed and planned. Design
excellence matters, and we want to encourage quality architecture. We
also want to encourage the construction of community amenities, like
parks and recreational centers, close to the stations. If we set the
density numbers too low or add too many restrictions, then the parcels
might not develop at all, and we'll miss out on the chance to maximize
our investment in the Silver Line.

But the community representatives, to my mind, make even more
compelling points. The development around the stations should serve the
community, not the other way around. And we need to ensure that the
new development doesn't create a "virtual wall" that makes it virtually
impossible to get from north to south Reston. If we can't get anywhere
on our roads, then we're damaging our community. The entire purpose of
running the transportation analysis is to ensure that we'll have the
infrastructure to support the density we're adding. If we ignore the
traffic impacts in the name of "great" development, then we're not doing
our jobs as a task force.

The developers on the Task Force argued that we’ll need to “think of
traffic in a different way” in the future. It wasn’t clear whether they
meant that people will be less car-dependent in the future, or that
we’ll all just have to accept more traffic as the price of progress.
While it’s true that more urbanized areas tend to be less car-centered
than Reston is today, it’s hard to see that as a viable future for us.
Fairfax County isn’t Manhattan; we just aren’t designed to allow most
people to avoid using their cars regularly. And if we’re supposed to
just get used to more traffic, there comes a point when we’re so overwhelmed that the road network breaks down. And is that really
progress?

The Task Force is scheduled to meet next Tuesday (October 23rd),
and at that meeting, the planning staff will present its latest draft
of Scenario G. Given the developer pushback at the last meeting, it’s
entirely possible that this draft will feature higher densities and a
lower percentage of residential development. If so, the community
representatives will not welcome the proposal with open arms. And we’ll
find ourselves stuck in neutral again. In the long term, this
disagreement may further delay the work of the Task Force. It's not an
easy balance for the planning staff, and I don't envy them as they try
to balance competing interests.

Regardless of which side you're on, this debate matters. This plan
will shape the face of Reston for decades to come. The County has
posted information about Scenario G on the Special Study website. I urge you to review it and become familiar with the plan.

And if you have an opinion, contact the members of the Task Force and
make your voice heard. We generally see the same faces at the
meetings, and we know what they think. I'd like to know what you
think. If you have any thoughts to share, feel free to leave them in
the comments below.

GMU Report Flawed; Would Lead Region Down Unsustainable Path

Using
funding from developers with significant interests in land in outer
suburban locations, researchers at George Mason University's Center for
Regional Analysis have issued a new report arguing for massive
investment in highway infrastructure. Experts at the Coalition for
Smarter Growth disagree.

"The GMU report is based on flawed and
outdated assumptions and would lead our region down an unsustainable
development path," said Stewart Schwartz, Executive Director of the
Coalition for Smarter Growth (CSG).

"The report ignores the
fundamental shifts in real estate demand, changing demographics and
market demand. The GMU view would also leave behind Prince George's and
older parts of eastern Fairfax and eastern Prince William counties,"
said Cheryl Cort, Policy Director for CSG.

"While dressed up with
an acknowledgment of transit, the report is focused on justifying a
wasteful expansion of highways which would fuel more spread-out
development and yet more traffic," said Schwartz. "This includes real
estate mogul and 2030 Group backer Til Hazel's primary goal of an outer
beltway in Virginia."

"Our region's elected leaders have committed
to a sustainable vision plan in 'Region Forward,' a plan that
emphasizes the critical importance of transit and transit-oriented
communities to improve access to jobs and housing, reduce pollution, and
address congestion," said Cort. "The GMU report seems to be an effort
to undermine the region's focus on these more sustainable investments."

"We
reject this effort by the 2030 Group through the GMU report, and by the
Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance whose forum yesterday was
intended to promote massive new spending on roads and sprawl," said
Schwartz. "We share the goal of an economically competitive region and
we are certain that this will require a primary focus on transit and
efficient transit-oriented communities."

The Coalition for Smarter Growth has identified the following flaws in the GMU analysis:

1) Ignores fundamental changes in the residential real estate market:
The report relies on population projections which continue to
include old assumptions about growth in the region's outer suburbs and
still don't fully reflect the dramatic long-term shift in real estate
demand.

Demand for housing with long commutes has collapsed and
may never recover given high gas prices, the ever-smaller percentage of
households with children, and the strong demand of millennials, retiring
baby boomers and empty nesters to live in walkable, urban and
transit-oriented communities. (See Christopher Leinberger, Walk the Way:
The Economic Promise of Walkable Places in Metropolitan Washington,
D.C.)

2) Uses old regional activity centers data:

The report uses the old regional "activity centers" data, instead of
the most up-to-date activity centers, which means it omits and ignores
many of Prince George's County's Metro stations, Fairfax's Route 1
corridor and a number of other older commercial corridors which are
planned to be efficient transit-focused centers. This omission biases
the report toward sprawling auto-dependent areas.

3) Fails to acknowledge the failure of highway expansion to fix congestion:

Transportation
experts have acknowledged that highway expansion in metropolitan areas
typically fails and that the new capacity induces more auto-dependent
development leading to a return of congestion in as little as five
years.

4) Fails to fully account for the benefits of transit and transit-oriented communities:

The
report fails to acknowledge the critical importance of transit to
manage peak hour commuting. By offering a high-capacity commuting
alternative, transit offers tens of thousands of Washington area
residents an alternative to driving in traffic. The report also fails to
note that mixed-use transit-oriented communities not only shift many
trips to transit, but they also maximize walking and biking trips and
shorten many car trips.

About the Coalition for Smarter Growth

The
Coalition for Smarter Growth is the leading nonprofit organization
addressing where and how the Washington region grows, partnering with
communities in planning for the future, and offering solutions to the
interconnected challenges of housing, transportation, energy and the
environment. We ensure that transportation and development decisions
accommodate growth while revitalizing communities, providing more
housing and travel choices, and conserving our natural and historic
areas. The Coalition's website is www.smartergrowth.net.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

On Tuesday night, I attended the latest meeting of the Reston Master Plan Task Force.
I have attended every one of the meetings I could during the almost
three years that the process has run to date. However, I understand
that a lot of folks aren't able to attend the meetings. So this week
and next, I'm going to fill you in on the latest news with the Task
Force. This week, I'll focus on the current schedule for the Task
Force's efforts. Next week, I'll explain the showdown that's likely
looming when the final plan recommendations are prepared. This showdown
will have major ramifications for the future of our community, so it's
worth paying attention and getting involved.

Last night, we received an update on the schedule for Phase 1 of the Master Plan Special Study,
which covers the area along the Dulles Toll Road and around the planned
Silver Line stations. Currently, the Fairfax County planning staff is
attempting to finalize the proposed levels of development, so that the
County Department of Transportation (FCDOT) can perform necessary tests
on the traffic impacts of the proposed development.

The planning staff is preparing its latest land-use scenario (more on
this next week). Once the scenario is finalized and approved by the
Task Force, FCDOT will begin its analysis. The bad news: FCDOT reports
that their analysis will take 5 months. And because the transportation
analysis is necessary in order for VDOT to review and comment on the
impact of the development plan (which is required by state law), the
final recommendations of the Task Force cannot be submitted until the
analysis is complete.

While the traffic analysis is underway, the Task Force will work on
drafting the Comprehensive Plan language that will be submitted, as well
as preparing a report that will detail the Task Force process and
describe any differences between the visions of the planning staff and
the Task Force. The goal will be to have all of this material ready for
submission to the Planning Commission by the time VDOT has reviewed the
traffic analysis and provided its comments.

So what's the bottom line? In the best case, assuming no major
delays in preparing the land use scenario and no hitches in drafting the
Comprehensive Plan language and the Task Force report, we can expect
this to go before the Planning Commission next August, and to the Board
of Supervisors for approval next September or October. That's roughly
the same time that the Wiehle Avenue station on the Silver Line will
open for business.

This timeline is, to say the least, disappointing. The whole point
of splitting the Master Plan Special Study into two phases is so that
Phase 1 would be completed before the Silver Line got here, so
that we'd establish the ground rules for development before the
Metro-related proposals started coming in.

But as we've seen in the case of the notorious 23-story office tower,
Metro-related development plans are already rolling in. And by voting
to approve a tower that violates the Task Force's planning principles,
Supervisor Hudgins has indicated that she won't follow the Task Force
proposal until it's approved by the Board of Supervisors. Now we know
that it's going to be at least a year before that proposal is in place.
That means another year of uncertainty in Reston's planning, which is
frustrating for developers and the community alike.

I'm not blaming planning staff or the FCDOT for the schedule; the
planners are working diligently, and the transportation analysis will
take as long as it takes. But the Task Force's deliberations have
always been, well, deliberate. Now we're seeing the price of that slow
progress.

The good news is that the County is planning to start Phase 2 of the study before Phase 1 is complete, which I suggested in this space back in May. As we've seen with projects like the redevelopment of Fairway Apartments and the furor over Reston National,
the Silver Line is spurring redevelopment proposals outside the borders
of the Task Force's study area. The sooner we can produce new
development ground rules that cover all of Reston, the better.

I hate to close out on a down note, but you'll note that I said that
final approval of the Task Force's proposal on Phase 1 will take a year
in the best case. On Tuesday night, I saw reason to doubt the
probability of the best-case scenario. I'll explain why - and why you
should pay attention - next week.

Think you’ll be taking the train to work soon? Don’t count on it. A
study conducted by the George Mason University Center for Regional
Analysis finds that in 30 years, cars will still be the main way of
getting to and from work in Northern Virginia and the D.C. area.

The study, headed by George Mason University Senior Fellow John
McClain, looked at economic growth projections and tried to square them
with likely modes of transportation. The findings won’t do much to
encourage those who are counting on mass transit to ease congestion in
the region. . .

. . . For all economic activity in the region, the share of GRP enabled by
auto travel goes from 74.3% in 2007 to 73.1% in 2040, and economic
activity supported by transit changes only very slightly from 22.3% to
22.2%. . . .

In fact, GMU forecasts the region will grow by 331% and Fairfax County
will grow by about the same, 323%, over the 2010 to 2040 timeframe.
That's more than a quadrupling of the region's and the county's gross
regional product.

Until we have had a chance to read the full report, we'll limit our comment to one point: The findings indicate that the state and county will have to find ways to finance additional road improvements to accommodate the anticipated growth in traffic.

The following June 2007 letter from Fairfax County resident and attorney William Coleman to then-County Board Chairman Gerry Connolly highlights a series of what are euphemistically characterized as "non-standard" terms in the contract with Bechtel and Dulles Transit Partners (DTP) to build Phase 1 of what has become called the Silver Line. Quoting from Mr. Coleman's overview of the contract, these key non-standard terms include:

Inappropriate secrecy provisions

Award of the construction contract before final design approval, without right to bid competitively the approved final design without penalty

A supposed "fixed-price" portion of the contract which is not a "fixed price," instead by its written terms adjusting automatically to price changes of major construction items, e.g.--steel and concrete

Award of utility relocation work under a separate contract and without a fixed-price

Loose conditions to control "differing site condition" costs

"Concurrent non-project activities" which are expected to be designed and built as part of the Project but have an unclear relationship to the proposed contract

Provisions allowing the contract to cause the conditions for its own Change Orders and Delays Claims that would increase cost to the taxpayer.

The letter (below) provides additional detail on each of these points.

Two vital questions arise:

What assurances does the tax- and toll-paying public have that MWAA will not include similar provisions in its contract for Phase 2 construction of the Silver Line?

Why, in the face of this information, did the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors subsequently agree in secret to the so-called "funding partners" that sticks toll road users with over half the cost of the line's construction and three-quarters of any price increases?

Yesterday the New York Times published an excellent column in its "Room for Debate" series, this one on using tolls from roads to fund other projects. The backgrounder specifically cites Dulles Toll Road tolls being used to pay for more than half of Metrorail construction costs. An example it doesn't cite is the New York Port Authority using tolls from the bridges to Manhattan to re-build the World Trade Center--not even a transportation project. Below we reproduce the short backgrounder on the topic from the NYT. For the views from a variety of economic, transportation, civic, and political experts, please click on this link to the article.

It’s usually some consolation when you hand over a $5 bill at the
toll booth or slow down for E-ZPass: At least the money will go toward
keeping this road drivable. But in some cases, that’s no longer a safe
assumption. In Northern Virginia, drivers on the Dulles Toll Road are paying more than half the cost of an expansion of the Metro train system. In Ohio, the director of the turnpike authority says its revenue should be used for other projects.

Should revenue from toll roads be spent on other transportation priorities, like public transit?

Saturday, October 6, 2012

It's a busy time at RCA these days. I think I've started most of my posts in the last couple of months with some version of that statement, but it's true. There are a lot of hot issues in Reston right now, and we've been active and engaged on the ones within our sphere of influence.

Every once in a while, though, I begin to despair that RCA - and I - can only do so much. During busy times like this, it seems like I can never attend all of the meetings I should attend, and RCA can't address all the issues we should address. We have a dedicated and hard-working organization, but we are all only human. And I worry about who will address some of these issues if RCA doesn't.

But when I do attend meetings, I'm encouraged and reassured by all the citizen activists that I meet. As I've discussed previously, Reston was settled by a group of pioneers who believed that citizenship is an active duty, and that if you want to see change in the community, you need to make it happen, not wait for someone else to do it. This spirit of service is not shared everywhere, and Reston is widely known for it.

When I had breakfast with Tom Davis the other week, he mentioned that Reston has a county-wide reputation for its civic activism and involvement, and added that Reston is considered "a high-maintenance area" by local leaders because of its involved citizens. Speaking as a Restonian, I'm proud of that reputation, and I intend to see that it continues into the future.

Happily, I can report that citizen involvement in Reston is alive and well. I've attended a couple of events this week that drove home to me what an active, committed bunch Restonians are.
Last Saturday, I attended and spoke at the rally organized by Rescue Reston to protect Reston National Golf Course against the threat of redevelopment. Rescue Reston itself is a success story for civic involvement. When word spread through the community in July that Reston National's owners were applying to have the golf course declared to be developable, the surrounding residents jumped to action. In the space of a couple short months, Rescue Reston has raised money for legal counsel, run an awareness campaign to alert Restonians to the issue, and developed an action plan to help Reston protect its open space. It's a testament to what a group of dedicated people on a mission can accomplish.

The turnout at the rally was tremendous; we had several hundred folks in attendance, many of them sporting Rescue Reston's bright yellow-green shirts. A lot of attendees were people whose homes border Reston National, but I spotted a number of folks who don't live anywhere near the golf course. That's an encouraging sign. It shows that Restonians understand that this issue doesn't just affect the homeowners around the course; the principle of Reston's open space and the zoning laws that protect it affect all Restonians.

I was also encouraged by the speakers at the rally who affirmed the importance of open space. In addition to me and Rescue Reston executive director John Pinkman, Supervisor Cathy Hudgins expressed her support for the preservation of the golf course, and her optimism that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) will uphold the decision that the golf course must remain open space. Richard Chew spoke on behalf of the Reston Association; he affirmed that RA stands with Rescue Reston on this, and that RA has also retained legal counsel to pursue the issue in court if necessary.

It's great to speak in front of a group of fired-up citizens; their passion and enthusiasm spurs me to keep up the fight. And it's inspiring to see that so many Restonians take our founding principles seriously, and are willing to stand up and fight for them.

The event I attended on Wednesday morning was very different in tone and subject matter. RCA's Reston Accessibility Committee held its community forum, entitled "Accessibility: A Call to Action." The forum was designed to educate the public about the state building code changes and General Assembly bill that were recommended by the HJR 648 Work Group to make Virginia's building codes and laws more disability-friendly.

HJR 648 was a bill sponsored by Reston's own Del. Ken Plum. It established a working group that included representatives of the disability rights community (RAC among them), the building development industry, and local zoning officials. The group proposed a total of 7 amendments to Virginia's statewide building code, and one bill that would provide tax credits for businesses that made improvements to make their property more accessible to people with disabilities. The building code changes are now being reviewed by the Department of Housing and Community Development Board, and the bill will be considered in the next General Assembly session.

I had the honor of moderating this forum, but the stars were our panel of experts. Del. Plum described the challenges that the tax-credit bill will face in the General Assembly, and encouraged us to build coalitions around common interests to help the bill pass. RAC's hard-working chairman, Ken Fredgren, and one of his work group colleagues, Director Matt Barkley of the Disability Services Planning & Development of the Fairfax County Department of Family Services, explained the building code changes and told the audience what they could do to help get the changes approved. After they spoke, the three panelists took questions from the audience.

The audience was rather different from the crowd at the rally, but they are also activists. Many of them either have disabilities or have relatives or friends who do. Theirs is often a quieter sort of activism, but no less vital. For them, it's a struggle just to have the ability to go where they want and participate in the same activities the rest of us take for granted. They're tenacious and determined, and their spirit inspires me.

Some of the most moving moments at the forum revolved around the stories these folks had to tell. One man explained that he has to arrange to visit friends and relatives at restaurants; he isn't able to visit their homes, either because of the entrance stairs or because the doorways are too narrow for his wheelchair. A woman described the fact that her son, who has Lou Gehrig's disease, had to move out of Reston - out of Virginia entirely, in fact - because he couldn't find a house that could accommodate his condition. For someone like me, with no disabilities, these stories are shocking; for many of the people in the audience, they're a fact of life.

Ken noted that, to his knowledge, RAC is the only organization in Virginia doing what they do, reaching out to property owners and managers and encouraging them to make their facilities ADA-compliant. He'd like to see RAC's model spread to surrounding communities, and elsewhere in the state. I'd like to see that as well. But it seems fitting to me that Reston, with its tradition of activism, is a pioneer in this form of citizen involvement.

Two different events, two different subjects, two different goals. But the Recue Reston rally and the Accessibility forum, in my view, shared one common thread: engaged citizens getting involved in the community. The people at both of these events don't just passively reside in Reston and watch things happen; they get active and make the changes they want to see in the community.

Both of these events left me feeling energized. I have great ambitions for growing RCA, taking on more issues, and expanding the scope of our influence. Despite this, I know that no matter how much we grow, RCA will never be able to address all of Reston's issues, or solve all of Reston's problems. But because we have such active, dedicated, passionate citizens, I'm confident that we'll be able to address all these issues and solve these problems together.
For those of you out there who missed the rally and the Accessibility forum, you may be wondering what you can do to become active and get involved. I'm happy to report that you can.

If you're concerned about Reston National and the open space issue, our next big target is the BZA hearing on October 24th. Rescue Reston wants to flood the room with a neon-clad army of supporters, and you can be one. If you want to have your say, you can submit a written statement or sign up to speak at the hearing. Contact me or John Pinkman, and we'll provide you with the details.

If you're interested in accessibility and supporting the building code changes, there are three things you can do. First, as I said, the Department of Housing and Community Development Board is currently reviewing the proposed building code changes, and will be voting on them in the coming months. You can write or email the Board in support of the changes. Second, the Virginia House and Senate Finance Committees will consider the tax-credit bill when the General Assembly recovenes in January. You can write, call, or email the members of those committees and urge them to pass the bill. Finally, you can contact the County Board of Supervisors and ask them to recommend the tax credit bill be included in the County's legislative package. If you contact me or Ken Fredgren, we'll provide you with the contact information for those boards and committees.

One of Reston's great strengths is its sense of community, which was built on the foundation of civic involvement and activism. That spirit makes us a special place, and I'm inspired by the citizen activists I see every day to keep that spirit alive.

Friday, October 5, 2012

An advisory committee is recommending a series of toll increases on
the Dulles Toll Road that will provide funding for the new Silver Line.

The
Dulles Corridor Advisory Committee endorsed a 50-cent toll rate
increase in January 2013, to $1.75 at the main plaza and $1 at the
ramps. The committee also recommended a rate of $2.50 at the main plaza
in 2014, keeping the ramp toll at $1, and a rate of $3 at the main plaza
and $1.50 at the ramps in 2015.

The committee also asked that the 2015 toll rates be re-examined at a later date, before they go into effect. . . .

The DCAC's endorsement undercuts the RCA Reston 2020 recommendation for a slower rate of toll growth over the next three years. The slower growth rate would have been in line with RCA's goal of having toll road users pay only 25% of the cost of the line vice the current plan for them to pay 54% and 75% of any cost increases.

Robert Clarke Brown, who is leaving the MWAA Board this month, wrote an extensive letter to US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood criticizing his involvement with MWAA's effort to build the Silver Line. He criticizes LaHood's interference with the independence of the MWAA Board by virtue of his encroachment on its authorities by appointing an Accountability Officer, involving himself in local governmental issues, and pursuing needless investigations. He characterizes these activities as distracting from the core issue: the "fundamentally flawed plan of finance." He criticizes LaHood for failing to provide leadership and, along with Virginia, for failing to provide adequate funding for the construction project.

Groups organize community response, retain legal counsel.

By Alex McVeigh

Donna Robuck and her husband
Robert have lived in a house that overlooks the 10th hole at the Reston
National Golf Course for the past 14 years. She can still recall: “I
walked in the house, walked straight through to the balcony, and me and
my husband thought, ‘this is it. This is the perfect house,’” she said.
“The very next day my mother-in-law called and asked what the kitchen
looked like, and I had no idea.”

Since then, she described living in their house as a dream, but in recent months that dream has been threatened.

“We
cannot stand the thought of someone taking away the golf course away
from us,” she said. “My husband and I have sunk a lot of money into our
town home and we’re waiting for the Metro to come, which will be in
walking distance, and hopefully I can retire early. If that dream gets
messed up, it destroys our life.”

THE ROBUCKS’ DREAM
is in danger due to the Reston National Golf Course owners’ appeal with
Fairfax County’s Board of Zoning Appeals to get residential development
rights for the 166-acre course. . . .

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Is the Dulles Toll Road toll a toll? Or a tax? And who has jurisdiction to make the decision?

Those are among the questions being pondered by a three-judge panel
of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in D.C., which
today heard arguments from the group called “No Toll Increase.” The
group has challenged the legality of using a portion of the tolls
collected on the busy commuter highway to fund construction and
operation of the Metro Silver Line.

The group’s attorney, Bob Sincar, argued before the panel that, under
Virginia law, proceeds from tolls can only be used to fund construction
and maintenance of the roads and bridges on which the toll is
collected. He also argued that since the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority (MWAA), which owns the toll road and is building the
Silver Line, is not an elected body it does not have the authority to
impose a tax. . . .

The Reston Accessibility Committee, another RCA committee, is a co-sponsor of this event tomorrow. We at Reston 2020 believe you will find the event worthwhile. The following details are from the Reston Patch.

Accessibility: A Call to Action

Light refreshments will be served. Learn how pending proposed
accessibility updates to the Virginia building code and a proposed
General Assembly bill can improve accessibility for Restonians with
disabilities, and how, together, we can help advocate for their success.
Your ideas can help! Presentations: Delegate Ken Plum (VA 36th District) Matthew Barkley, Director, Disability Services Planning and Development, Fairfax County Department of Family Services Ken Fredgren, Chairman, Reston Accessibility Committee of Reston Citizens Association RSVP: Jan Pohl, Reston Interfaith E-mail: jan.pohl@restoninterfaith.org
Phone: 571-323-1412 Fax: 571-323-9554 Your response will enable us to
plan appropriately for the event. Please tell us about any reasonable
ADA accommodations that would be helpful to your participation. For general information other than to RSVP Ken Fredgren, fredgren.k@gmail.com

Loudoun Chamber president Tony Howard makes the case for additional
state transportation funding and cooperation in the General Assembly.

Last month, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority held
several public hearings to gather public input on the proposal to raise
tolls on the Dulles Toll Road to pay for Virginia‘s share of the Dulles
Rail Project.

Though these toll hikes are planned to fund Virginia’s share of the
project, MWAA was the one vilified by the opponents of this project.

On Oct. 17, the Loudoun Board of Supervisors will stage a public
hearing on the proposal to create two special tax districts in eastern
Loudoun to pay for the County’s share of the project.

No doubt the loyal opposition will again be out in force to oppose
these tax districts and the completion of the Dulles Rail Project that
is favored by 80 percent of Loudoun residents.

But even amongst the majority of Loudoun residents who favor Dulles
Rail and other transportation investments, there are valid questions and
even strong resentment over the state of Virginia’s transportation
program.

The toll rate plan and proposed tax districts represent a new reality
in Virginia, one in which the Commonwealth neglects its responsibility
to fund transportation improvements and local governments are forced to
raise the money needed to build new road and rail capacity.

Since it is rare (maybe unprecedented) that we find ourselves even generally aligned with any of the local CoC's on area development matters, we thought it useful to highlight the concerns expressed here by the Loudoun CoC, which are similar to our own.

Indeed, we believe that, other than Fairfax and Loudoun counties, the Commonwealth of Virginia has the most to gain--or lose by permitting tolls to climb--with the building of the Silver Line. The development that will come with arrival of rail will help fill all their treasuries from the associated taxes of so many types, but it will be substantially reduced if workers and residents go elsewhere because of high tolls.

All three are ducking their investment responsibilities to make the Silver Line succeed and dumping it on the backs of the Dulles Toll Road users. Indeed, the secret deal cut in 2009 among the Loudoun Board (different composition than at present), the Fairfax Board (almost the identical composition), and MWAA that forces toll road users to pick up well over half of the cost of construction--and three-quarters of any additional costs--was one of the most grossly inequitable in northern Virginia history.

We believe that toll road users should pay no more than one-quarter of the Metrorail construction costs in line with the 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). MWAA and the local counties should step up to pay the difference--about 54% instead of 25% agreed to in their secret deal--barring additional state or federal funding. The state should also substantially increase its contribution in line with its support for other large transportation infrastructure projects in southern Virginia and the tax gains that can be anticipated. And the federal government, whose approval of a $900 million grant got this project started, needs to add to its limited funding effort as well, even if it is only a TIFIA loan.

Tolls on parkway will not only cost motorists, it will drive them to side roads.

Fairfax County has a serious and immediate transportation funding
crisis. It is looking for ways to cover a $3 billion gap in meeting
$8.1 billion in transportation needs over the next decade. As part of
that effort, the County is sponsoring an ongoing “Dialogue on Transportation” that involves a series of public meetings and a survey of county residents.

Part of the dialogue—and the survey—is looking at a laundry list of tax alternatives
to help fund the gap. As presented, none would achieve the aim done
alone. All told, some 20 different tax alternatives are laid on the
table.

Without doubt, the singularly most preposterous proposal presented is the tolling of the Fairfax County Parkway.
As presented, the County could establish a $2.00 toll for entering the
Parkway. It estimates that the toll would cost the average county
household $89.50 per year, which means the average household would use
the Parkway 44-3/4 times per year.

Talk about meaningless
information. A regular user of the road, such as a Reston or Herndon
commuter headed north or south, would spend about $900 per year to use
the road. Others, say in Clifton or Tysons, might not use it at all.
In short, once again our County leaders are looking at making a small
share of the county citizens pay a sizable portion ($350 million over
the decade) just as they did (only secretly) in agreeing to the current
grossly inequitable funding arrangements for the Dulles Toll Road.

From
a Reston or Herndon perspective, the tolling of the Parkway would mean
the diversion of traffic to other north-south routes through these
communities in addition to the diversions caused by hikes in tolls on
the Dulles Toll Road. In Reston, one could expect additional traffic on
Reston Parkway and maybe even Wiehle. In Herndon, its Parkway would
probably also see additional traffic at least as far south as the Dulles
Toll Road.

Based on the County DOT’s recent brief to the
Reston Task Force this month, one can expect a more than four minute
delay on Reston Parkway at Sunrise Valley Drive at the peak of the
evening rush in 2030 based on the most recent task force development
proposal—a level of service even county staff acknowledges is
unacceptable. Now think of adding diverted Fairfax County Parkway
traffic to that flow.

As part of the County’s dialogue, there will be a public meeting at the North County Government Center on October 3 at 7 p.m. As laid out in the county’s meeting schedule,
there are a number of other meetings you can attend if that one is
inconvenient. I strongly recommend that the citizens of Reston and
Herndon attend one of these meetings, first, to learn about the problem
and the possible solutions and, second, to voice your disapproval of the
ridiculous proposal to toll the Fairfax County Parkway.

We do
have a transportation funding crisis and there are a number of
reasonable alternatives for meeting that fiscal challenge. Tolling the
Fairfax Parkway is, however, a very bad idea that needs to be nipped in
the bud. You need to make sure your voice is heard on the matter.

Terry Maynard
Reston

The author is a member of the Reston Citizens Association Board of Directors and its Reston2020 Committee.

So when representatives of the Fairfax County Office of Community
Revitalization showed attendees of Monday's community meeting a timeline
for Crescent redevelopment that stretched into 2016 and beyond, it was too much for some of them to take.

"I have been to 10 or 12 meetings," said Linda Fuller, owner of Lake Anne Florist and Wine Shop. "Why are we doing this again? Are we going to sit here at Lake Anne while Reston Station,Fairway, and ParcReston
are redeveloped? How does Lake Anne Village Center take advantage of
Reston Station if we have nothing to offer? I have been on the plaza for
38 years. I am not gonna sit here again and listen to something I have
heard before."

With that, Fuller left the room. She was soon joined by another neighbor.

"I am wondering why you called this meeting," the woman said. "We
have told you 15 times what we want for Lake Anne. This is
[expletive]." . . .

About RCA's Reston 20/20 Planning Initiative

The goal of RCA's Reston 20/20 Committee--a committee of the Reston Citizens Association--is to elicit, organize, and represent to government officials, including the county's Reston Master Plan Special Studies Task Force, on key community issues a vision of what Reston's citizens believe a 21st Century Reston should become.

This blog intends to share information, elicit feedback, and generate ideas and dialogue pertinent to the activities of the Committee and the Task Force on a timely basis. We strongly encourage reader participation in this blog through constructive comments, ideas, and questions in comments or articles.

To post a comment, simply click on the "Comments" button and a blank space will show up for you to enter your comment. You may link comment to one of the identified services, post your name, or even post anonymously. The comments are moderated to ensure appropriate content--relevant, constructive, and decent. ALL points of view are welcome.

Readers may post articles they have writtenon Reston's planning efforts by submitting them to terrmayn@ yahoo.comas the text in an e-mail or either a .DOC or .PDF formatted document. We request you provide a point of contact to verify your identity. Your name, affiliation (if any), and city where you are located will be included with each article unless you wish to remain anonymous. All articles and comments will be moderated to ensure appropriate substance and language.

All Restonians are invited to participate in the Reston 20/20Committee. The committee is co-chaired by Tammi Petrine and Terry Maynard.All of its meetings are open to the public and every viewpoint is welcome . Meeting times, places, and agendas will be posted on this blog. You are strongly encouraged to attend and participate in these meetings.

Make a difference--VOLUNTEER for Reston!

The Reston 20/20 Committee is looking for Reston residents willing to help the committee advance a citizen's view of the future of Reston. Your participation may be as much--or as little--as you would like, starting with participation in periodic Reston 20/20 meetings.

If you're interested in keeping Reston a great place to live, work, & play, please contact Tammi Petrine (para1010@verizon.net) to be put on the Reston 20/20 mailing list. If you wish to volunteer, let her know your interests, abilities, and so forth, so we can match you to Reston 20/20's needs.